07 May 2013

Why it matters how DMC was developed

Preview of my print column today -- a rewrite of a few posts on the DMC topic last week:

In Friday's paper, we published an excellent story by MPR News'
Elizabeth Baier about the process that Mayo Clinic used to draw up the
Destination Medical Center plan that was unveiled in late January.

To say it was closed-door would be an understatement. Mayo all but
closed the big bronze doors on the Plummer Building to keep information
from getting out until they were ready to release it.

When they made the announcement Jan. 30, it was like a thunderbolt out
of the blue for just about everyone in Rochester (including me and the
P-B newsroom). Until that time, the proposal was vaguely known by a
different name, Destination Medical Community, and it was promoted as a
way to make Rochester more friendly and accommodating for medical
visitors. It was not a $6.5 billion plan that involved a half-billion
dollars in state money.

The P-B has reported and commented many times on the process, but Baier
had new details in her story, and she also came up with a memo and list
of 30 people who were on a DMC "work group" in April 2010, some of whom
signed non-disclosure statements. P-B reporter Edie Grossfield has a
story today with reaction from city and county leaders who were inside
the loop, or not.

The inner circle

We've asked for a list of the participants previously, and I asked again
last week. Lisa Clarke, the DMC administrator for Mayo, said she didn't
know who gave a copy to Baier and hasn't provided an alternative list,
so for today, I'll go with the list from April 26, 2010. These people
were on the list to attend that meeting:

Also attending were three "guest participants" from consulting and
lobbying firm Hammes Co.: Bob Dunn, Amy Supple and Sarah Carpenter.

There are 30 names here (not including the Hammes staff) and 17 are from
Mayo. So we're down to 13 who represented non-Mayo interests. Of those,
three were from the city (and none were from Olmsted County), two were
Chamber leaders, and Eckhoff, Smith and Jones. That leaves five.

Then there are the P-B publisher and the KTTC sales executive. We in the
P-B newsroom received no information from Randy Chapman's involvement,
or from any other participant. For the past year, we attempted to get
details on the evolving plan, especially in advance of the Nov. 6
election. That's when Rochester voters decided the fate of the local option sales tax, which included $20 million for "Destination Medical Community," with vague details about how the money would be used.

The first I became aware of what we now know as DMC was at a late
afternoon meeting Jan. 29 at the Mayo Building with a few other P-B
reporters, the mayor, Mayo officials and CEO Dr. John Noseworthy. The
project was announced in St. Paul the next day.

According to Grossfield's story today, even City Council Interim President Randy
Staver was unaware of the legislative initiative until it was announced
Jan. 30.

Lack of transparency

Back to the work group list. So three people represented the community
more broadly, and all were business people closely aligned with the
Chamber: Tessa Leung, Norm Doty and Bruce Fairchild, who now lives in
Texas.

As Baier says in her story, "As the process has unfolded, some lawmakers
and Rochester residents have complained they were caught by surprise
when clinic officials announced the project known as Destination Medical
Center in January."

This is an understatement. The lack of transparency prior to Jan. 30 has been a major issue locally.

Clarke says in Baier's story, as she has many times since DMC was
announced, that the community was deeply involved in developing the
plan. "We had focus groups, we had opportunities for the community to
weigh in, we've had brownbag sessions," she was quoted as saying. "This
is before and after we publicly announced it... So if there was any
question about whether or not the community is involved, we've said from
the start the goal was to involve the community."

There have been plenty of meetings since January, but it's not accurate
to say the community was involved meaningfully before that.

Why does it matter at this late date, with DMC poised to become law? It
matters immensely, not only for how DMC is implemented and how it may
transform Rochester, but for understanding how and why it came about.

DMC long ago ceased to be a "private-sector led, private-sector driven
initiative," as Wade says in Baier's story. He's quoted as saying, "It
is not a private enterprise's primary responsibility to share everything
they do from a business perspective."

When you go to the Legislature and ask for extraordinary taxing powers,
development authority and a half-billion dollars in infrastructure and
transit funding, however, it's not a private matter.

DMC has been called the biggest economic development project in
Minnesota history. It's not asking too much to want more information on
how it came about, and to expect transparency and true community
involvement as it moves forward.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What bothers me most about this issue is the arrogant response from Mayo/its supports regarding the lack of info sharing before announcing DMC. Mayo wants public support (tax$), but will only involve the public when it's ready.

I would be more forgiving of the Mayo approach if Mayo could explain why they kept the project secret for so long. For instance, was the secrecy needed to prevent Mayo's competitors from getting an edge, or anything that even sounded a little bit realistic. Mayo could at least try to come up with a reason rather than just being the typical domineering Mother Mayo.

"It's not asking too much...to expect transparency and true community involvement as it moves forward."

Unfortunately it may be too much to hope for that the best means for transparency and community involvement moving forward will become available to us.

The best means requires a DMCC board that includes the range and diversity of views adequate for representing the stakeholders impacted by and vested in the decisions of that board and the public funds being expended.
The best means also requires that the "business entity consultant" implements a plan and planning process obligated to provide the board with the adequate input to secure and enhance the lives of all who are impacted by and vested in the decisions of the board and the public funds being expended.

Who on the conference committee would step up to support these remedies?

To hold that the presence of elected officials appointed to this board will provide for accountability overlooks that these appointees remain accountable only to those constituents by whom they are elected, not to all those whose lives this board impacts. Nor is it sufficient to say that community involvement comes with marketing research, visioning exercises, and world cafes - however well-intended. Nor are public hearings where stakeholders are relegated to the role of petitioner and supplicant.

Meaningful community involvement comes only with a voting presence on the board sufficient to represent the community.